Monthly Archives: January 2010

Professor Carroll Quigley, President Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown, tells how the international bankers have taken over the world in his book Tragedy and Hope. He was an historian who actually applauded the bankers in their endeavors and was not a wild eyed critic of their “One World Government” aspirations.

Quigley writes in Chapter 20: “The powers of financial capitalism had [a] far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financialcontrol in privatehands, able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the centralbanks of the world acting in concert by secretagreements arrived at in frequent privatemeetings and conferences” [emphasis mine].

“Secret agreements”? “Private meetings”? “Financial Control” of the world? This might have been called a conspiracy in the 20th Century, but now it is out in the open. Read this excerpt from Chapter 5, how “Bankers Create Money out of Nothing”:

“Bankers Create Money Out of Nothing

For generations men had sought to avoid the one drawback of gold, its heaviness, by using pieces of paper to represent specific pieces of gold. We call such pieces of paper gold certificates. Such a certificate entitles its bearer to exchange it for its piece of gold on demand, but in view of the convenience of paper, only a small fraction of certificate holders ever did make such demands.

It early became clear that gold need be held on hand only to the amount needed to cover the fraction of certificates likely to be presented for payment; accordingly, the rest of the gold could be used for business purposes, or, what amounts to the same thing, a volume of certificates could be issued greater than the volume of gold reserved for payment of demands against them. Such an excess volume of paper claims against reserves we now call bank notes.

In effect, this creation of paper claims greater than the reserves available means that bankers were creating money out of nothing. The same thing could be done in another way, not by note-issuing banks but by deposit banks. Deposit bankers discovered that orders and checks drawn against deposits by depositors and given to third persons were often not cashed by the latter but were deposited to their own accounts. Thus there were no actual movements of funds, and payments were made simply by bookkeeping transactions on the accounts.

Accordingly, it was necessary for the banker to keep on hand in actual money … no more than the fraction of deposits likely to be drawn upon and cashed; the rest could be used for loans, and if these loans were made by creating a deposit for the borrower, who in turn would draw checks upon it rather than withdraw it in money, such “created deposits” or loans could also be covered adequately by retaining reserves to only a fraction of their value.The Dynasties of International Bankers

The merchant bankers of London … brought into their financial network the provincial banking centers, organized as commercial banks and savings banks, as well as insurance companies, to form all of these into a single financial system on an international scale which manipulated the quantity and flow of money so that they were able to influence, if not control, governments on one side and industries on the other.

The men who did this, looking backward toward the period of dynastic monarchy in which they had their own roots, aspired to establish dynasties of international bankers and were at least as successful at this as were many of the dynastic political rulers. The greatest of these dynasties, of course, were the descendants of Meyer Amschel Rothschild (1743-1812) of Frankfort, whose male descendants, for at least two generations, generally married first cousins or even nieces.

In concentrating, as we must, on the financial or economic activities of international bankers, we must not totally ignore their other attributes. They were, especially in later generations, cosmopolitan rather than nationalistic. They were usually highly civilized, cultured gentlemen, patrons of education and of the arts, so that today colleges, professorships, opera companies, symphonies, libraries, and museum collections still reflect their munificence. For these purposes they set a pattern of endowed foundations which still surround us today.Bankers Felt Politicians Could Not Be TrustedWith the Monetary System

The influence of financial capitalism and of the international bankers who created it was exercised both on business and on governments, but could have done neither if it had not been able to persuade both these to accept two “axioms” of its own ideology. Both of these were based on the assumption that politicians were too weak and too subject to temporary popular pressures to be trusted with control of the money system; accordingly, the sanctity of all values and the soundness of money must be protected in two ways: by basing the value of money on gold and by allowing bankers to control the supply of money. To do this it was necessary to conceal, or even to mislead, both governments and people about the nature of money and its methods of operation.

In most countries the central bank was surrounded closely by the almost invisible private investment banking firms. These, like the planet Mercury, could hardly be seen in the dazzle emitted by the central bank which they, in fact, often dominated. Yet a close observer could hardly fail to notice the close private associations between these private, international bankers and the central bank itself.

Two of the five factors which determined the value of money are the supply and the demand for money. The supply of money in a single country was subject to no centralized, responsible control in most countries over recent centuries. Instead, there were a variety of controls of which some could be influenced by bankers, some could be influenced by the government, and some could hardly be influenced by either.

Central banks can usually vary the amount of money in circulation by “open market operations” or by influencing the discount rates of lesser banks. In open market operations, a central bank buys or sells government bonds in the open market. If it buys, it releases money into the economic system; if it sells it reduces the amount of money in the community. The change is greater than the price paid for the securities [due to the fractional reserve system].

Central banks can also change the quantity of money by influencing the credit policies of other banks. This can be done by various methods, such as changing the re-discount rate or changing reserve requirements. By changing the re-discount rate, we mean the interest rate which central banks charge lesser banks for loans. By raising the re-discount rate the central bank forces the lesser bank to raise its discount rate in order to operate at a profit; such a raise in interest rates tends to reduce the demand for credit and thus the amount of deposits (money). Lowering the re-discount rate permits an opposite result.

The powers of governments over the quantity of money are of various kinds, and include (a) control over a central bank, (b) control over public taxation, and (c) control over public spending. The control of governments over central banks varies greatly from one country to another, but on the whole has been increasing. Since most central banks have been (technically) private institutions, this control is frequently based on custom rather than on law.

The powers of the government over the quantity of money in the community exercised through taxation and public spending are largely independent of banking control. Taxation tends to reduce the amount of money in a community and is usually a deflationary force; government spending tends to increase the amount of money in a community and is usually an inflationary force. The total effects of a government’s policy will depend on which item is greater. An unbalanced budget will be inflationary; a budget with a surplus will be deflationary.Money Power—Controlled by International Investment Bankers—Dominates Business and Government

On the whole, in the period up to 1931, bankers, especially the Money Power controlled by the international investment bankers, were able to dominate both business and government. They could dominate business, especially in activities and in areas where industry could not finance its own needs for capital, because investment bankers had the ability to supply or refuse to supply such capital. Thus, Rothschild interests came to dominate many of the railroads of Europe, while Morgan dominated at least 26,000 miles of American railroads.

Such bankers went further than this. In return for flotations of securities of industry, they took seats on the boards of directors of industrial firms, as they had already done on commercial banks, savings banks, insurance firms, and finance companies. From these lesser institutions they funneled capital to enterprises which yielded control and away from those who resisted. These firms were controlled through interlocking directorships, holding companies, and lesser banks. They engineered amalgamations and generally reduced competition, until by the early twentieth century many activities were so monopolized that they could raise their noncompetitive prices above costs to obtain sufficient profits to become self-financing.

But before that stage was reached a relatively small number of bankers were in positions of immense influence in European and American economic life. As early as 1909, Walter Rathenau, who was in a position to know (since he had inherited from his father control of the German General Electric Company and held scores of directorships himself), said, “Three hundred men, all of whom know one another, direct the economic destiny of Europe and choose their successors from among themselves.”The Power of Investment Bankers Over Governments

The power of investment bankers over governments rests on a number of factors, of which the most significant, perhaps, is the need of governments to issue short-term treasury bills as well as long-term government bonds. Just as businessmen go to commercial banks for current capital advances to smooth over the discrepancies between their irregular and intermittent incomes and their periodic and persistent outgoes, so a government has to go to merchant bankers (or institutions controlled by them) to tide over the shallow places caused by irregular tax receipts.

As experts in government bonds, the international bankers not only handled the necessary advances, but provided advice to government officials and, on many occasions, placed their own members in official posts for varied periods to deal with special problems. This is so widely accepted even today that in 1961 a Republican investment banker became Secretary of the Treasury in a Democratic Administration in Washington without significant comment from any direction.

Naturally, the influence of bankers over governments during the age of financial capitalism (roughly 1850-1931) was not something about which anyone talked freely, but it has been admitted frequently enough by those on the inside, especially in England. In 1852 Gladstone, chancellor of the Exchequer, declared, “The hinge of the whole situation was this: the government itself was not to be a substantive power in matters of Finance, but was to leave the Money Power supreme and unquestioned.” On September 26, 1921, The Financial Times wrote, “Half a dozen men at the top of the Big Five Banks could upset the whole fabric of government finance by refraining from renewing Treasury Bills.”Montagu Norman and J. P. Morgan Dominate the Financial World

In addition to their power over government based on government financing and personal influence, bankers could steer governments in ways they wished them to go by other pressures. Since most government officials felt ignorant of finance, they sought advice from bankers whom they considered to be experts in the field. The history of the last century shows, as we shall see later, that the advice given to governments by bankers, like the advice they gave to industrialists, was consistently good for bankers, but was often disastrous for governments, businessmen, and the people generally.

Such advice could be enforced if necessary by manipulation of exchanges, gold flows, discount rates, and even levels of business activity. The powers of these international bankers reached their peak in the last decade of their supremacy, 1919-1931, when Montagu Norman and J. P. Morgan dominated not only the financial world but international relations and other matters as well.

On November I l, 1927, the Wall Street Journal called Mr. Norman “the currency dictator of Europe.” This was admitted by Mr. Norman himself before the Court of the Bank on March 21, 1930, and before the Macmillan Committee of the House of Commons five days later. On one occasion … Mr. Norman is reported to have said, “I hold the hegemony of the world.” It might be added that Governor Norman rarely acted in major world problems without consulting with J. P. Morgan’s representatives.”

“The truth shall make you free,” said the Savior Christ. He knew about “them,” of course, and encouraged His followers to “know them that labor among you.” This knowledge is especially important for these latter days. KWH

To fully understand the vision of the immortal sons and daughters of God, one must come to grips with God’s sovereignty. God is totally in control. He is sovereign. He rules. He is in complete charge of every-thing that is happening in our respective lives. He is the Supreme Authority in everything that is happening to any and everyone here on earth. And He does as He pleases without our permission.

God is in complete control of everything that is taking place in and through the governments of man here on earth. He is ruling as I write this and as you read this. Nothing is happening at this instant here on earth that He is not aware of and that He has not ordained and pre-determined to happen.

He is in total charge of the powers that be here on earth. “The powers that be are ordained by God.” He has provided for their rise to power and has helped them to accumulate wealth and influence. Everything that is happening at this instant, or that ever has happened, is a result of God’s sovereign desire and control.

The old hymn goes, “Thou art the Potter, I am the clay…Have thine own way…” We sing it, but what His awesome sovereignty entails escapes our little finite minds. Our Creator is the Divine Potter at His wheel. He sits down, and with the earth He has created, He fashions containers from clay, vessels to be used at His convenience and His discretion. He is in charge of making the vessels and pots. He molds and shapes these human beings in accordance with His own desires and purposes. They, for the most part, do not understand most of the time what He is doing, for His ways are difficult for His creation to comprehend. He is the Potter and is fashion-ing from the same lump some pots to be used for everyday water containers and wash pots. And some are done with the Master’s finest touch to be beautiful and of fine design, fit for the use of being kings and queens. And some clay vessels may never make it to the kiln for firing. Some are shaped and then returned to the original large lump, never to be fashioned like that again.

But some people do not like the way life is treating them. In other words, they do not like the cards that God has dealt them. When they find out that God is the one in control and has mercy on whomever He desires to have mercy, they do not like it. They lash out at Him and His sovereignty and say, If He made us this way, “then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?” To which the apostle Paul replies, “But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, Why did you make me like this? Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?” Romans 9:18-21, NIV.

Remember. He is sovereign and can and does do what He wants to do with His creation. But we humans think that we are in charge of our own lives. No matter how insignificantly we stride upon the world stage, we think that we are formidable and of great importance.

And those humans whom He has chosen to be kings and rulers in the world system—how high and lifted up they stand. Take King Nebuchadnezzar as an example. He was the famous king of the Neo-Babylonian Empire that ruled from 605-562 B.C. His experiences with Yahweh are written down by Daniel the prophet. Through these experiences, Nebuchadnezzar learned that God is sovereign.

The king’s pride had puffed him up. He was the absolute ruler of an incredibly rich empire. His city Babylon was itself a wonder of the world. But the source of all of those earthly blessings was lost upon him. He did not acknowledge who had enabled him to acquire untold wealth and power as the “head of gold” of the Babylonian Empire.

Nebuchadnezzar actually thought that he had on his own strength gotten all the power and riches. “Is not this great Babylon; that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honor of my majesty,” he boasted one year after being warned in a dream that he would go insane and become beast-like for seven years. This warning was “to the intent that the living may know that the most High rules in the kingdom of men, and gives it to whomsoever he will, and sets up over it the basest of men.” Daniel 4:17, 30.

God had given him warning in a dream and the dream came to pass. Nebuchadnezzar was smitten with insanity for seven years. And at the end of the seven years of living like a beast out in the courtyard, he began to sing a different tune. “I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation: and all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?” Daniel 4:34-37.

Here was the most powerful man on earth exclaiming that God is sovereign and that we earth-dwellers better realize that He rules right here on earth. He found out the hard way. Kenneth Wayne Hancock (from the book The Unveiling of the Sons of God which you can find at the top of this page. Just click “Ebook…”]

Fundamentalist Christianity teaches four misconceptions that provide gainsayers ammunition to challenge the veracity of the Bible[1].

The Creation of the Earth–When?

First, they claim that the earth was created 6,000 years ago. Actually, this is when God created Adam, as biblical chronology supports. As Frederick Haberman points out, “The Word says, ‘In the beginning God created,’ but it does not say when that beginning was; neither does modern science know.” It is common knowledge that this earth is extremely ancient in man’s time, in the millions and not thousands of years old.

Adam was not the first

Second, Adam was not the first homo sapien created. There were indigenous races scattered all over the earth. No one knows for sure when God created them. Some of these pre-Adamic people were living literally around this new Garden of Eden, planted by God and tended by Him in preparation for Adam’s new home. Adam and his descendants were a brand new creation of mankind. To them God gave the knowledge of the arts of civilization–astronomy, architecture, agriculture, law. They would be eventually dispersed to bring civilization to many parts of the earth. Isn’t it interesting that the historical record starts about the time of the biblical creation of Adam–about 4,000 years B.C.?

To those who doubt this, I ask you two questions about Cain, the murderous son of Adam. Why was Cain deathly afraid of being cast out of the Garden after his murder of Abel? Cain cried out to God. “My punishment is greater than I can bear! Surely You have driven me out this day from the face of the ground…I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond [wanderer] on the earth, and it will happen that anyone who finds me will kill me” [2]. Who were these people that Cain was afraid of? The very fact that he was afraid of being killed by someone “out there” outside the Garden proves that there were other menbefore Adam’s family was created. Cain had a cozy little set-up there in the Garden. All was taken care of; he was blessed and nurtured there. Now he knew that being cast out, he would become like the other hunter-gatherers; he would be a “restless wanderer” like them with no stable home. He would be cast out into a hard nomadic life, a life full of danger and desperation. The second question is the age-old one: Where did Cain get his wife? That has now been answered.

Noah’s Flood

Third–and this is a huge sticking point to so many who have been taught this since infancy–Noah’s flood was not worldwide, but a local one. Genesis is the book of Adam and his offspring. Genesis 5: 1 says, “This is the book of the generation of Adam.” In other words, Genesis is not a record of the hunter-gatherer nomadic tribes that trod the earth before Adam was created around 4,000 B.C. It is a record of Adamite man and his world. So when Genesis states that the whole world was flooded, it is talking about Adam’s offspring’s world. But when we have been programmed to believe that the Bible teaches that Adam is the father of all men, then understanding languishes. “A universal Deluge is contradicted by many statements of Scripture and impossible to harmonize with the chronology of the Old Testament, to say nothing of the physical impossibilities and consequences” [3]. According to scripture, the patriarch Abraham is standing in the illustrious courts of Pharoah a mere 300 years after the flood of Noah. A total worldwide flood would have rendered the earth so destitute that it would take much more than 300 years for new civilizations to arrive again.

Moreover, this same “whole world” concept is spoken of in the New Testament. The scripture states that the Romans “taxed the whole world” during the time of Jesus’ infancy. We know, of course, that it was only the Roman world that was taxed, not the Americas or China. But the Roman world was their world. Does that make the Bible inaccurate? No. Seen in this new light helps dissolve all the inconsistencies used in arguments against the veracity of the Bible. One other thing to consider in this third point. God’s Law of Harvest states: Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. According to this law, there is no way that all the races of the world could possibly come out of the loins of Noah and his wife Naamah. It is totally impossible! The Chinese have chinese babies that greatly resemble their parents. The same for Africans, Indians, and Western Europeans. Something is off somewhere. Getting rid of this misconception clears up much.

The Difference Between Jews and Israelites

“The fourth great stumbling block to the critics of the Old Testament has been the assumption that God’s chosen people, Israel, were the Jews,” writes Haberman. The children of Israel were comprised of the offspring of the twelve sons of Jacob, whose name was changed to Israel. Jacob, of course, was the son of Isaac and the grandson of Abraham (Gen. 12). One of Jacob’s sons was Judah. Like his brothers, Judah and his offspring inherited some of the Promised Land in Palestine. It is Judah’s descendants that began to be called Jews about 500-600 B.C., more than 1,000 years after Judah’s father Jacob/Israel was born. Therefore, Abraham was not a Jew! So, all twelve tribes were Israelites, but only one major tribe came to be called Jews. It is like, all Texans are Americans, but all Americans are not Texans. And to complicate matters even more, 90% of modern day Jews are descendants of the Khazars, a Turko-Mongol tribe in south central Asia, who converted to Judaism about a thousand years ago [4]. And now they claim to be the true descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel and receivers of all the blessings promised to Abraham and his posterity! The truth is that they are not out of the loins of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel.[See Gen. 35: 9-12].

It is difficult to figure all this out. It takes much study, but it is well worth it to get the truth. KWH

Frederick Haberman, Tracing Our Ancestors, p. 163.

Genesis 4: 14

Haberman

Arthur Koestler, The Thirteenth Tribe, a history of the Khazar conversion to Judaism

{Order your free copy of Yah Is Savior or my new book The Royal Destiny of God’s Elect. It is totally free with free shipping to my readers. Just send your mailing address to my email address: wayneman5@hotmail.com Specify which one.}

The translators of the King James Bible substituted the title “the LORD” (in capital letters) for the Hebrew name of God–YHWH, pronounced Yahweh by most scholars. Over 6,700 times did they do this–except for one instance.

The verse is found in Psalm 68: 4. “Sing unto God, sing praises to His name: extol Him who rides upon the heavens by his name YAH, and rejoice before him.”

The prophet King David of Israel, inspired by the Holy Spirit, tells us in this verse to “sing praises to His name.” And then he tells us how to do this properly. He gives us the exact name of God right after the commandment. We are to extol and praise Him “by His name YAH.”

We are to address God and use His true Hebrew name YAH or YAHWEH in our praise of Him. In fact, the Spirit of God Himself speaking through David gives us a command. “Sing praises to His name…extol Him by His name YAH.” It could not be plainer in English.

But very few people know about this. And many who hear this for the first time immediately have doubts. They will say, “The LORD just wants us to praise Him. He doesn’t mind us saying ‘the LORD.'” And yet this scripture is perfectly clear.”

Why won’t people receive this? Christ asked the question this way. “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” We are commanded to “praise Him by His name YAH.” He went on to say, “You have made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.” And, “In vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15: 3-9).

We all learned to say, “Praise the LORD” instead of “Praise YAH” because of traditions handed down to us. And the sad irony here is that we all have literally praised YAH in Hebrew when we said, “HalleluYah.” This Hebrew word means–you guessed it–Praise YAH!

It takes a real hunger and thirst for God to be able to be open hearted enough to say, “I was in error. This is true and I am receiving it and walking in it no matter what the world may think or say.” KWH